Ten years ago, Republicans in Congress passed a major law to protect the right of Muslims to establish mosques even where such a building might be unwelcome....

The law, called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, was aimed at a common problem often ignored by the courts: local government bodies using zoning authority to prevent religious institutions from moving in or expanding their operations.

It had the support of such groups as the Christian Legal Society and the Family Research Council. Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., said it was aimed at "the well-documented and abusive treatment suffered by religious individuals and organizations in the land use context." Sen. Orrin Hatch, R- Utah, pushed it because, he said, "At the core of religious freedom is the ability for assemblies to gather and worship together."

Ten years ago, Republicans in Congress passed a major law to protect the right of Muslims to establish mosques even where such a building might be unwelcome....

The law, called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, was aimed at a common problem often ignored by the courts: local government bodies using zoning authority to prevent religious institutions from moving in or expanding their operations.

It had the support of such groups as the Christian Legal Society and the Family Research Council. Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., said it was aimed at "the well-documented and abusive treatment suffered by religious individuals and organizations in the land use context." Sen. Orrin Hatch, R- Utah, pushed it because, he said, "At the core of religious freedom is the ability for assemblies to gather and worship together."

Click to expand...

Bravo for the GOP for protecting the very core principals on which this country was founded.

Ten years ago, Republicans in Congress passed a major law to protect the right of Muslims to establish mosques even where such a building might be unwelcome....

The law, called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, was aimed at a common problem often ignored by the courts: local government bodies using zoning authority to prevent religious institutions from moving in or expanding their operations.

It had the support of such groups as the Christian Legal Society and the Family Research Council. Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., said it was aimed at "the well-documented and abusive treatment suffered by religious individuals and organizations in the land use context." Sen. Orrin Hatch, R- Utah, pushed it because, he said, "At the core of religious freedom is the ability for assemblies to gather and worship together."

They have every right in the world to build their Mosque there but they shouldn't and the whole world knows why.

These Muslim supporters of this Mosque Location are the so called "good ones" who supposedly detest and disagree with the Terrorists among them, why then do they insist on sticking it up the a$s of the 9/11 Families.

These "wonderful kind and gentle people" who chose this site for their Mosque know exactly what their doing their rubbing America's Nose In The Dirt while building a "SHRINE"

Muslims all over the world will dance in the streets when it is completed.

The only thing the stupid americans can do now is use it for their own "SHRINE" to teach future generations to "NEVER FORGET 9/11"

This thread is just a pathetic attempt to try and shift blame for an extremely unpopular position the President has taken.

I know you hate to hear this Patters but you're not fooling anyone. The American people know which party is the one supporting the mosque at Ground Zero. See you in November.

Click to expand...

I'm not shifting blame because I think Obama, Pelosi, Bloomberg, Franken, etc. are 100% right on this issue, and the Republicans were right in 2000 when they passed that law. I'm merely pointing out Republican hypocrisy.

I'm not shifting blame because I think Obama, Pelosi, Bloomberg, Franken, etc. are 100% right on this issue, and the Republicans were right in 2000 when they passed that law. I'm merely pointing out Republican hypocrisy.

That was a good catch, and what makes it even more interesting is that those who introduced the legislation are now those who seem to oppose what it stands for. It would be curious to find out their true intention behind that legislation -- it obviously wasn't to help those of the Muslim faith.

I'm not shifting blame because I think Obama, Pelosi, Bloomberg, Franken, etc. are 100% right on this issue, and the Republicans were right in 2000 when they passed that law. I'm merely pointing out Republican hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

Please continue doing all you can do to support the Ground Zero mosque and like I said, see you in November.

I'm not shifting blame because I think Obama, Pelosi, Bloomberg, Franken, etc. are 100% right on this issue, and the Republicans were right in 2000 when they passed that law. I'm merely pointing out Republican hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

How about Reid, Dean, etc?

It's not a party lines issue. On every statement, I think both sides have said its constitutionaly okay but is poor judgement. It's only hypocrisy in your mind -- you're probably someone who thinks opposition to gay marriage is all the Republicans fault too.

It's not a party lines issue. On every statement, I think both sides have said its constitutionally okay but is poor judgment. It's only hypocrisy in your mind -- you're probably someone who thinks opposition to gay marriage is all the Republicans fault too.

Click to expand...

It's not a party line issue at all, true. In fact I read 52% of NY liberals oppose the mosque, so there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, not just on the right. I can respect the idea that it's poor judgment to put the mosque in that location, but those who criticize Obama, Pelosi, and others for their defense of the Constitution are wrong. I think the Constitution is clear on this issue, and that point of view ought to count for something.

It's not a party line issue at all, true. In fact I read 52% of NY liberals oppose the mosque, so there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, not just on the right. I can respect the idea that it's poor judgment to put the mosque in that location, but those who criticize Obama, Pelosi, and others for their defense of the Constitution are wrong. I think the Constitution is clear on this issue, and that point of view ought to count for something.

Click to expand...

I have yet to hear anyone object to to it on Constitutional grounds and in fact most say it is allowed under the Constitutional. The question is not whether they are allowed or can put the mosque there, but whether they should locate it there.
If their goal is to foster understanding, they should take into consideration the feelings of those 3000 families who lost loved ones that terrible day and move the mosque a respectable distance away. There are over 100 mosques in NYC alone and no one objects to any of them. The reason that this one, and this one alone causes controversy is its proximity to a site where 3000 died and how they died.

Now that the necessary disclaimer is over with, I think it represents poor judgment to put it there. Put the shoe on the other foot. Putting aside the impossibility of this hypothetical scenario, it would be akin to Rick Warren building a church in the middle of a bombed-out Iraqi neighborhood to promote healing and understanding. Sensitivity is a two-way street.

What's right is right and someone else's willingness to be wrong doesn't justify wrong-doing on your part.

As to Iraq, the best data I can get is that there were two times as many Christians living there before we invaded as there are today. Apparently roving bands of people who think like Harry, PFIEL and Patsfan13 are much better at oppressing and killing the minority in Iraq than Saddam's regime.

What's right is right and someone else's willingness to be wrong doesn't justify wrong-doing on your part.

As to Iraq, the best data I can get is that there were two times as many Christians living there before we invaded as there are today. Apparently roving bands of people who think like Harry, PFIEL and Patsfan13 are much better at oppressing and killing the minority in Iraq than Saddam's regime.

Click to expand...

But I thought we made Iraq a better place??? Did our government lie?? Again???

What's right is right and someone else's willingness to be wrong doesn't justify wrong-doing on your part.

Click to expand...

Sigh...giving a play-by-play for pretty simple posts is getting frustrating.

Ok, let's try again. I am not advocating doing wrong, for one. I have no idea where you are getting this idea that I am advocating an eye for an eye.

I say let them build it if they want (This was covered in my disclaimer, and previous posts to that effect). I am making the point that the stated motives for building the mosque there are misguided. You can disagree with that if you like, but I already see a distinct lack of healing going on.

And yes, sensitivity is indeed a two-way street. In the real world, no one action exists in a vacuum.

As to Iraq, the best data I can get is that there were two times as many Christians living there before we invaded as there are today. Apparently roving bands of people who think like Harry, PFIEL and Patsfan13 are much better at oppressing and killing the minority in Iraq than Saddam's regime.

Click to expand...

Non-sequitur, though I would be interested in seeing the fallout from a thread to this effect.

Nikolai, I disagree with the premise that it's misguided to build a mosque a couple blocks from Ground Zero.

Having been subject to the reasoning of the Christian majority in related ways, I have a certain sympathy to the Muslims in this situation. It's not very different from "if you don't want to sing "Jesus Loves Me This I know," you can go sit in the hallway... but don't disrupt the class by sitting there not singing..."

For any who feel that's a wild leap, to me, a religious minorty raised in a time and place when the majority/minority "just be polite" theory was used as law, it seems very similar.

It's all good and well to tell people to accept less than their full legal rights, in the name of being polite to you, and say that's what you'd do in such a situation.

But when it's accompanied by calls for legal action to take away your full rights, as with attempts to block this mosque, to retreat is simply to say "we, as a group, have a theoretical right we will not exercise. You, as a group, have a real right you can exercise and argue about."

They are absolutely right to complete the bloody mosque, prayer center, whatever, which is already in their own building.

Darryl makes a good argument about "Hallowed Ground." Should there be a one-mile radius in South Manhattan, where:
- One cannot speak Arabic, or any other south Asian language that may be confused with Arabic, since the 9/11 hijackers were from Arab countries?
- One cannot wear South Asian clothing - whether Muslim, Sikh, or other?
- One cannot pray unless one is a member of the right religion?
- One cannot sell hummus, because it's popular in the Middle East?

Any of these things could offend someone on "9/11" grounds.

What the hell does it even mean to say people have a right to something, but they should be more sensitive, and not exercise their rights?

The group developing this center in south Manhattan are doing it for a specific community in south Manhattan. They have a right, and in their view, an obligation, to serve that community.

I have read over and over that there are 100 mosques already in New York.

Really? Wow. And how many churches and synagogs? Yah. That "stat" isn't very useful in a vacuum, is it? And if a great number of Muslims have only inconvenient access to the 100 mosques mentioned because of travel time, why do Muslims have no right to have a mosque where they live or work? In many areas of most American cities, you will have three or four competing Christian sects represented on the same block.

Dictating the other guy's politeness seems pretty damn dicey as a fallback position, when you realize you're wrong on the civil rights argument.

This is a bloody first amendment issue, full stop. If you love America and what it stands for, you have to support the rights of even an unpopular religious group to have equal rights. What you believe is polite is pretty thin gruel in this context.

Quick coda: watching "Morning Joe" this morning. For those who watch, Joe Scarborough is a sort of non-culture-warrior Republican on MSNBC (use to be a Republican congressman from Florida.) He's spent a good chunk of the last hour talking with guests about how the developers of the mosque are just plain on the right side. (and yes, he has stayed conservative on plenty of issues, from lowering taxes to giving credence to tea partiers.) Regardless, he's making the point that we can't give in to intolerance as a country.

Quick coda: watching "Morning Joe" this morning. For those who watch, Joe Scarborough is a sort of non-culture-warrior Republican on MSNBC (use to be a Republican congressman from Florida.) He's spent a good chunk of the last hour talking with guests about how the developers of the mosque are just plain on the right side. (and yes, he has stayed conservative on plenty of issues, from lowering taxes to giving credence to tea partiers.) Regardless, he's making the point that we can't give in to intolerance as a country.

PFnV

Click to expand...

Really? Because based on other posters, I heard all Republicans were against the mosque...